1. The Defendant’s annual interest in KRW 38,825,90 and KRW 27,539,90 among the Plaintiff, from July 5, 2014 to November 10, 2015.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a person who operates a construction and an interior business in the name of “C”, and the Defendant is a person who purchased a single-story house D in Yangyang-si for the purpose of opening a child-care center.

B. On April 7, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a construction contract with the Defendant for the construction work to extend and rebuild the contents of remodeling the said housing into a building for the use of a childcare center (hereinafter “instant construction work”), with respect to the construction work cost of KRW 132,00,000 (excluding value-added tax), April 21, 2014 on the date of commencement, and on May 21, 2014 on the date of completion, and on the annual interest rate of 10% at the time of delay in payment of the construction cost (hereinafter “instant construction contract”).

C. On April 18, 2014, the Plaintiff reported the commencement of construction and started construction and completed the inspection for approval for use on July 4, 2014.

The defendant paid KRW 85,00,000 among the above construction cost.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, each entry and video of Gap's 1 through 16 (if there are various numbers, including numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. According to the above facts, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the agreed construction cost of KRW 60,200,000 (i.e., KRW 132,200,000, value-added tax of KRW 13,200,000, KRW 85,000) out of the instant construction cost. (ii) The Defendant leased the construction license of another company without a comprehensive construction license and carried out the instant construction work without any reference to value-added tax at the time of the Plaintiff’s request for construction cost, and on the ground that there was no tax invoice issued by the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff cannot accept the Plaintiff’s claim for value-added tax on the instant construction cost.

However, the Value-Added Tax Act stipulates that value-added tax shall be imposed on the transaction of supply of goods or services by an entrepreneur (Article 4 subparagraph 1), and where an entrepreneur supplies goods or services, value-added tax shall be levied on such goods or services